Quote:Charlie Kirk's suspected murderer apparently thinks he has some right to request that for his court appearances, he is not shackled and is allowed to wear street clothes. And the court absolutely has every right to deny it on legal grounds.

Defense attorneys representing Tyler Robinson, the alleged killer of the late founder of Turning Point USA, have requested that Robinson appear "unshackled and in regular street clothes instead of jail attire" for all court appearances so as to avoid looking guilty, the Salt Lake Tribune reported.

The report read:

They say that's "necessary to maintain the presumption of innocence" and avoid any possible "prejudicial effect" for a future jury.

On Monday, prosecutors filed the request with the 4th District Court Judge Tony Graf, in a response that was allowed to be kept secret because it contained "secure information that might endanger personal and public safety if disclosed."

The report went on:

That includes information from the court's security director "regarding specific security measures in this case."

On Friday, a hearing will take place where both sides can argue their reasoning in private.

After the arrest, Robinson made an appearance in court virtually, wearing a suicide prevention vest.

Fox News host Kayleigh McEnany perfectly captured how many Kirk supporters will feel when hearing Robinson's request, given the evil crime he's accused of.

"Where does he get off suggesting that he deserves this or is owed this?" the Fox News host said, noting that she refreshed her constitutional law background. "Fifth Amendment, you get the protection against self-incrimination. Double jeopardy."

"You get your due process rights from the Sixth Amendment. You get the speedy and impartial jury, right to counsel," she added. "And then the right to compel witnesses. Nowhere in here, Mr. Robinson, is there a right to wear street clothes. Yeah, you can request that. You certainly don't have a right to that."

"What I do know is the evidence against Tyler Robinson is strong," McEnany continued. "There is a text message where he methodically recounts what he had done in a very cold and sadistic fashion."

This is from the person who is suspected of firing a bullet from a rifle at Kirk and killing him in front of thousands of college kids during Kirk's appearance on the campus of Utah Valley University in Orem, Utah, on September 10. His alleged actions killed the 31-year-old giant in the conservative moment, leaving his wife a widow and his two kids without a father.

This is the same person who agreed to surrender to police but only if his arrest was peaceful, as my RedState colleague Mike Miller reported.

Miller wrote:

During a press briefing with reporters, [Washington County (Utah) Sheriff Nate] Brooksby said Robinson was afraid a SWAT team would harm or even shoot him. Robinson "thought it was 'inevitable' that he would be caught and feared being shot by law enforcement," Brooksby added.

Cowardice to the max? You bet. A level of hypocrisy seldom reached? That, too. But the off-the-charts irony is beyond comprehension by normal, moral, and rational people.

The judge should simply turn to Robinson's attorneys and, with a one-word response, say, "No."

Link

That's the one person on earth that I might be happy about if he just keeled over and died this minute.

(10-24-2025 03:57 PM)TripleA Wrote:  That's the one person on earth that I might be happy about if he just keeled over and died this minute.

Only one? I can think of a dozen without even trying.

This is a standard request in every criminal trial. In Deck vs MO the US Supreme Court upheld that shackles and jumpsuits can prejudice the jury. This is basically always granted unless the person is a threat to the courtroom.

(10-26-2025 07:57 AM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  This is a standard request in every criminal trial. In Deck vs MO the US Supreme Court upheld that shackles and jumpsuits can prejudice the jury. This is basically always granted unless the person is a threat to the courtroom.

Ahhhh, that must be why I see so many young men in orange jumpsuits appearing in court at 201, huh?

It appears there is no requirement to grant a request for a suit, though. He and his lawyers can request it until the cows come home but no judge is bound by law to grant the request.

"The Court emphasized that while the presumption of innocence no longer applies after conviction, the jury’s decision between life and death in the penalty phase is equally critical and requires reliable, impartial judgment."

Minor details matter.

III.
Next Appellant asserts that the trial court abused its discretion by overruling his motion to appear at trial free of restraints. Appellant believes having to appear before the jury wearing leg irons and handcuffed to a belly chain violated his rights to due process, equal protection, confrontation of the evidence, a fair and reliable sentencing and freedom from cruel and unusual punishment.

The trial court has discretion to impose security measures necessary to maintain order and security in the courtroom, including the use of restraints.[6] "A trial court abuses its discretion when its ruling is clearly against the logic of the circumstances then before the court and is so arbitrary and unreasonable as to shock the sense of justice and indicate a lack of careful consideration."[7] "If reasonable persons can differ as to the propriety of the trial court's action, then it cannot be said that the trial court abused its discretion."[8] Recognizing this discretion, however, this Court does not minimize in any way its concern for maintaining a jury that is not prejudiced by extra-judicial influences and passions. Challenging the trial court's discretion to impose security by use of restraints is an individual and fact-specific inquiry.

Trial counsel made no record of the extent of the jury's awareness of the restraints throughout the penalty phase, and Appellant does not claim that the restraints impeded him from participating in the proceedings. There is also evidence that there was a risk that Appellant might flee in that he was a repeat offender and evidence from the guilt phase of his trial indicated that he killed his two victims to avoid being returned to custody. While this does not represent a comprehensive list of factors this Court would analyze in making determinations on this issue, there is sufficient evidence in the record to support the trial court's exercise of its discretion to deny Appellant's motion.

Even assuming, arguendo, that the trial court did abuse its discretion in this instance, Appellant has not demonstrated that the outcome of his trial was prejudiced. Appellant offers nothing more than speculation in support of his argument. Neither being viewed in shackles by the venire panel prior to trial, nor being viewed while restrained throughout the entire trial, alone, is proof of prejudice.[9]*486 Moreover, the venire panel was questioned in voir dire, and all members responded that Appellant's appearance in shackles would not affect their decision.

Damn, I've looked and looked, and nowhere can I find a ruling that entitles a criminal defendant to the right to dress in a suit at trial. I found arguments supporting the reasons for a defendant wanting to wear a suit free of shackles, but there is no rule preventing a judge from denying that request, not one that I could discover anyway.

"a fair and reliable sentencing and freedom from cruel and unusual punishment."

...the same fair and reliable death sentence he gave to Charlie with a hint of cruelty and punishment.

(10-26-2025 08:02 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(10-26-2025 07:57 AM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  This is a standard request in every criminal trial. In Deck vs MO the US Supreme Court upheld that shackles and jumpsuits can prejudice the jury. This is basically always granted unless the person is a threat to the courtroom.

Ahhhh, that must be why I see so many young men in orange jumpsuits appearing in court at 201, huh?

Pre-trial or in front of a jury?

(10-26-2025 09:39 AM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(10-26-2025 08:02 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(10-26-2025 07:57 AM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  This is a standard request in every criminal trial. In Deck vs MO the US Supreme Court upheld that shackles and jumpsuits can prejudice the jury. This is basically always granted unless the person is a threat to the courtroom.

Ahhhh, that must be why I see so many young men in orange jumpsuits appearing in court at 201, huh?

Pre-trial or in front of a jury?

Yes.

(10-26-2025 09:41 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(10-26-2025 09:39 AM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(10-26-2025 08:02 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(10-26-2025 07:57 AM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  This is a standard request in every criminal trial. In Deck vs MO the US Supreme Court upheld that shackles and jumpsuits can prejudice the jury. This is basically always granted unless the person is a threat to the courtroom.

Ahhhh, that must be why I see so many young men in orange jumpsuits appearing in court at 201, huh?

Pre-trial or in front of a jury?

Yes.

Elvis and Tom think they're experts on virtually every topic, to the point where they make fools of themselves actually arguing with someone that IS an expert on a particular topic.

Case in point.

(10-26-2025 09:43 AM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  

(10-26-2025 09:41 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(10-26-2025 09:39 AM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(10-26-2025 08:02 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(10-26-2025 07:57 AM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  This is a standard request in every criminal trial. In Deck vs MO the US Supreme Court upheld that shackles and jumpsuits can prejudice the jury. This is basically always granted unless the person is a threat to the courtroom.

Ahhhh, that must be why I see so many young men in orange jumpsuits appearing in court at 201, huh?

Pre-trial or in front of a jury?

Yes.

Elvis and Tom think they're experts on virtually every topic, to the point where they make fools of themselves actually arguing with someone that IS an expert on a particular topic.

Case in point.

It's fascinating and hilarious.

(10-26-2025 09:41 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(10-26-2025 09:39 AM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(10-26-2025 08:02 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(10-26-2025 07:57 AM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  This is a standard request in every criminal trial. In Deck vs MO the US Supreme Court upheld that shackles and jumpsuits can prejudice the jury. This is basically always granted unless the person is a threat to the courtroom.

Ahhhh, that must be why I see so many young men in orange jumpsuits appearing in court at 201, huh?

Pre-trial or in front of a jury?

Yes.

If it isn’t an arraignment or bench trial then their lawyer is lazy if they aren’t arranging court clothes, or they don’t have someone on the outside who cares enough to bring them clothes. Some PD offices keep clothing options for those people.

https://www.shelby-sheriff.org/contact-an-inmate

201 has “How do I deliver court appearance clothes” section on their website…

You should stick to electric cars

(10-26-2025 09:43 AM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  

(10-26-2025 09:41 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(10-26-2025 09:39 AM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(10-26-2025 08:02 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(10-26-2025 07:57 AM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  This is a standard request in every criminal trial. In Deck vs MO the US Supreme Court upheld that shackles and jumpsuits can prejudice the jury. This is basically always granted unless the person is a threat to the courtroom.

Ahhhh, that must be why I see so many young men in orange jumpsuits appearing in court at 201, huh?

Pre-trial or in front of a jury?

Yes.

Elvis and Tom think they're experts on virtually every topic, to the point where they make fools of themselves actually arguing with someone that IS an expert on a particular topic.

Case in point.

Yeah, I guess the Shelby county sheriffs department made that section of their website explaining how to drop off court clothes before they checked with you dumbasses and found out it wasn’t allowed.

And I don't even care that the murdering bastard wants to wear a suit. Let him, or don't; it makes no difference to me.

(10-26-2025 09:54 AM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(10-26-2025 09:43 AM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  

(10-26-2025 09:41 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(10-26-2025 09:39 AM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(10-26-2025 08:02 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  Ahhhh, that must be why I see so many young men in orange jumpsuits appearing in court at 201, huh?

Pre-trial or in front of a jury?

Yes.

Elvis and Tom think they're experts on virtually every topic, to the point where they make fools of themselves actually arguing with someone that IS an expert on a particular topic.

Case in point.

Yeah, I guess the Shelby county sheriffs department made that section of their website explaining how to drop off court clothes before they checked with you dumbasses and found out it wasn’t allowed.

Which is absolutely irrelevant. There you go again. No one said it wasn't allowed.

(10-26-2025 09:50 AM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(10-26-2025 09:41 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(10-26-2025 09:39 AM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(10-26-2025 08:02 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(10-26-2025 07:57 AM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  This is a standard request in every criminal trial. In Deck vs MO the US Supreme Court upheld that shackles and jumpsuits can prejudice the jury. This is basically always granted unless the person is a threat to the courtroom.

Ahhhh, that must be why I see so many young men in orange jumpsuits appearing in court at 201, huh?

Pre-trial or in front of a jury?

Yes.

If it isn’t an arraignment or bench trial then their lawyer is lazy if they aren’t arranging court clothes, or they don’t have someone on the outside who cares enough to bring them clothes. Some PD offices keep clothing options for those people.

https://www.shelby-sheriff.org/contact-an-inmate

201 has “How do I deliver court appearance clothes” section on their website…

Again, completely irrelevant to the OP. No one said it isn't allowed. Damn, you can't be this dense.

Of course he can be